FORMLESS, SHAPELESS, ENDLESS: a review of "Bruno"

As time grows closer for me to reveal my picks for my favorite and least favorite films of 2009, I will post some previously written reviews of some titles that have earned spots on either of those two lists.

Here's the first entry which was originally written November 21, 2009

“BRUNO” Directed by Larry Charles based upon a character created by Sasha Baron Cohen
* (one star)

I have to give it to Sasha Baron Cohen. He is definitely one who does not play things safely and I do appreciate it…even greatly. In these extremely sanitized and homogenous times, I do think we need someone like Cohen who is willing to take his exploits too far. Like Andy Kaufman and even Peter Sellers before him, I feel he is a deeply skilled actor, completely disappearing within the characters he creates and his devotion to their misadventures and their function as social provocateurs is fearless to say the least. That he is willing to take things to the wall, knock the wall down and keep marching full speed ahead is commendable. Yet my reactions to his massive hit comedy “Borat” and even moreso with his latest effort, “Bruno,” have been ones of frustration, irritation, and disbelief. Not through anything that could be deemed offensive, as there is an ocean’s worth of material in “Bruno” meant to shock and offend and with comedy, I tend not to offend that easily. If handled well, through writing, timing and execution, completely inappropriate material can just be the greatest source of laughter. And while I think that Cohen and his Director Larry Charles have made what they set out to accomplish, all of the offending material is entirely for naught as I barely found anything to be actually funny. “Bruno” is simply a shapeless series of stunts that felt wholly false while being held together by not even a shoestring’s worth of narrative and at even a brief 82 minutes, it still felt too long.

Like “Borat,” this new film is shot in a faux documentary style as it follows disgraced Austrian model Bruno (Sasha Baron Cohen) on his voyage to American (with his trusty and eternally fawning sidekick in tow) with his dreams of becoming “uber-famous,” despite having absolutely no discernable talent whatsoever. His ridiculous schemes to reach the top and beyond range from staging a test screening for his disastrous entertainment talk show pilot, to hopefully finding himself kidnapped by Middle eastern terrorist factions (so he can make a hostage film that will be seen around the world) all the way to possibly “curing” his raging homosexuality by becoming straight. We are subjected to tense vignettes meant to draw out the most squirmish of comedy. Bruno sits around the campfire with a small band of hunters trying to engage them in “heart-to-heart” conversations designed to break through their sexual barriers. He takes meetings with Evangelical ministers hoping to “cure” him. He attempts to seduce former Presidential candidate Ron Paul in a hotel room. He crashes a Swingers party, pretending to be straight and gets more than he bargained for when faced with a mad woman brandishing a whip. Its one mishap after another, that despite its bravery, feels so dramatically misguided and not much of the intent is managed honestly.

When “Borat” was released, I was underwhelmed because it was advertised and presented as a sort of 21st century “Candid Camera,” with Cohen completely buried within this strange character, traveling around the country, engaging himself in one situation after another with the unsuspecting public, whose reactions are captured naturally. What was interesting to me about that film were the scenes where we saw those natural reactions. It was an oddball comedy of manners as we saw Americans from different walks of life trying their best to remain stoically polite as the requests made upon them by Borat became more outrageous and how much people revealed about themselves in the process. It was fascinating but not enough to counteract the sequences that felt completely staged, taking away any comic bite. “Bruno” feels almost completely staged and if everyone is in on the joke, there’s no punch line to be found anywhere. The disbelief of any supposed truth in the comedy is blatant, the effect is numbing and the film becomes the definition of tedium as we just wait for scenes to mercifully end.

Take one brief but seemingly endless sequence where Bruno gains the council of a psychic. Bruno asks to speak to the spirit of “Milli from Milli and Vanilli” to gain guidance for how he can become eternally famous. Once the spirit had supposedly been reached, Bruno asks if he can “kiss” Milli in gratitude. The psychic says, “Yes,” and Bruno then goes through an extended pantomime of a kiss to graphic visualizations of fellatio, as the psychic quietly sits back, says nothing and simply waits for Bruno to reach sexual ecstasy. Now, I would believe that the punch line of the scene is not necessarily Bruno’s antics, but the reaction of the psychic. But, as that scene goes on and on and on and on, I could not believe for an instant that this psychic would sit there that long and the entire enterprise falls flat.

Even worse is another sequence where Bruno, after his botched kidnapping bit in the Middle East, returns to the United States with an adopted African child (i.e. Madonna) and appears on a morning talk show (think Maury Pauvich) with an audience made up completely of African-Americans. The sequence ends with a representative of Child Protection Services coming to claim the child away from Bruno and I couldn’t help but to ask myself if we are honestly supposed to think that only Cohen and his film crew were in on the joke. The way the sequence plays, it feels that EVERYONE is in on the joke thus diffusing any dangerous comic possibilities.

Some sequences also are strained attempts to shock the audience as in an early GRAPHIC sequence depicting the sexual acts of Bruno and his Pygmy lover. There is no real context or overall point to the scene. It seems they filmed it because they could. The contained it in the film because they could and for no other reason. It wasn’t offensive to me. It didn’t shock me. It just bored me.

Now, I do have to say that I did think the film as a whole contained two themes worth exploring: a critique of the continued culture of celebrity featuring untalented people who are famous just for being famous (Jon & Kate, Perez Hilton, The “Real” Housewives and so on…) and a critique against a homophobic mindset. Again, I give credit to Cohen, who just does not blink at any instant in his film. He NEVER breaks character and there are some more truthful scenes where I felt he could’ve really placed himself into real danger (as in a sequence where he and his sidekick are chained together in full S&M gear and crash a “God Hates Fags” rally or the bold final sequence staged in a homophobic wresting arena) and he remains focused throughout.

However, many of the sequences in “Bruno” feel as if Cohen, Charles and their crew are staging moments to expose people of their homophobia and it just felt mean-spirited. I may not agree with these people but their opinions are their own and if they are not actively hurting anyone, you just have to let it be and not place them into situations where they are humiliated on movie screens across the world. (But, then it could be argued that those people signed release forms to be in the film so they get whatever comes to them. I agree with that sentiment to an extent but I think you understand what I am getting at.) It just makes Cohen and Charles come off as superior to everyone in the movie and the effect is just smug ugliness.

My reaction to “Bruno” is not a passionate one. It is more matter of fact and the facts are as follows: I hardly laughed in this film. I didn’t enjoy this film. And despite Cohen’s courage and comic savagery, I hope this is the end of these sorts of projects for him and his talents can be served better elsewhere.

“Bruno” is easily one of the worst films of 2009.